I still think he will struggle at the mutual bit... if there is one thing I have never felt from flint it is him even slightly respecting the fact that I know stuff... he seems to think that only he can be a forum genius... appoligies if the bluntness is bordering on offensive...

Are you quite sure you are from the USA, Zarf, I am starting to have my doubts

Zarf what State/City?

I can then tell you if upside down or just flipped backwards

Sorry Zarf, though it is what he is doing to me... however you are right and returning the concept is being childish... as I said, sometimes it is hard to give up a habit...

Update: I'm working on writing the document now.

Let me explain how I see the system:

We have the capability to fight against undesirable members of the Politics community.  That fight requires two things:
A: A statement that we, as individual members, are asking for forgiveness for past transgressions of diplomatic discourse in the forum, and thus can't be called as hypocrites, and
B: A unified front to coordinate specific actions against said members of the community.

As such, the document, as envisioned, is to be divided into two parts:
Part 1: The belief system.  This is where the community agrees to the forms of discourse which we wish to eliminate from the community.
I've divided this up into two sections: Core values (consider this the equivalent of the "spirit of the law" in the modern legal system), and specific violations.  While the two systems can operate together, it should be wholly possible to demand retribution for someone who violates core values of the system, yet does not violate specific rules.

Part 2: The organizing structure.  I wish having a statement of values would be enough.  However, members who have consistently attempted to undermine effective communication on this forum won't care for a second about a document drafted saying "this is what we would like to see."  For some, we're left with only one option: to organize, and fight against these people as a community, using what tools we do have at our disposal.

This part includes 3 sections:
A section about the enforcement mechanisms the community can use to punish offenders.  Currently, I have devised three mechanisms of enforcement:
A: The censure.  Just a simple warning to someone.
B: The community ban.  Fairly self-explanatory, the community collectively refuses to respond to these people.
C: Cataloging.  With each offense, we copy enough evidence to prove a prior offense did occur by that person, and save it on an external forum.  As a person builds up offenses, we can bring the evidence to the mods, now with a preponderance of evidence that this person has a systemic history of violating the rules, and should be given harsher punishments.

Next, is the organizing structure.  We obviously need people to judge when someone has violated the rules.  This would give us the organization to do just that.  This also includes provisions for amending the document.

Finally, part 2 includes a section regarding signing the document, what the signing of the document means, and provisions for removing members.

Part 1 is complete below.  Other parts of the document are only semi-complete, so I won't post them yet.  I am looking for feedback, both regarding the writing and the content of the below statement.  If there is a part which you wish to dispute as part of a larger discussion (maybe you think people shouldn't be treated as equals), let me know, and I'll create a new thread for it (Consider this part of my Metadebating series).

Remember, this is a rough draft.  If you don't like something, it can be amended.

Section 1: Core values

Members of the Imperial Conflict Politics Association hold these core values:

That the Politics forum was created for, and only for, discussions of the ideas and concepts of political issues, or to discuss matters pertaining to the governance, discourse, and behavior within the Politics forum.

That methods of communication directed at humiliating or defacing an individual are counterproductive to the longevity of intellectual discourse within the Politics forums, and must be eliminated with due diligence.

That forum participants enter the Politics forum as equals, and should be treated with equal respect as one would desire upon them.

That members of the Politics forum should not be personally held to their views, and should be allowed to rescind a view without feeling of loss to personal integrity.

That we, as a community, have a responsibility to ensure that discourse within the Politics forum reflects the values of respect and integrity defined under this document.

That we, as a community, have the tools, both with and without the needs of moderator intervention, to transform the discourse within the forum into one more favorable toward constructive discussion, and must do so in a manner which most represents the greatest benefit to the community.

The signing members of the community agree to uphold these core values, both in their participation within the Imperial Conflict Politics Association and in their participation in the Imperial Conflict forums.

Before you ask, yes, I know... it does seem to be more philosophical than substantive.  This is going to be the exception, not the norm.

Not a nice way to start off, Bartender... X(